Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2082
High Court of Judicature at Madras
N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
T. Ravichandran
Versus
Director of School Education Chennai & Another
W.P.No.4084 of 2009
Decided on : 11-04-2011
For the Petitioner:C. Selvaraju, Sr. Counsel, S. Mani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.H. Ravikumar, G.A.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for unimpeachable evidence to support a claim for correction of date of birth, as well as the evidentiary value of entries in official records such as the S.S.L.C. Book.
Headnote:
Date of Birth - Service Register - Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for alteration of date of birth, citing Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. The court referred to various legal provisions and their interpretations, including the evidentiary value of entries in the S.S.L.C. Book and the importance of unimpeachable evidence in seeking correction of date of birth.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to alter his date of birth in the Service Register, claiming that his actual date of birth was 2.3.1959, not 11.5.1956 as recorded. The petitioner's father had made multiple attempts to correct the date of birth, but they were rejected by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide unimpeachable evidence to support his claim for correction of date of birth. The court referred to various legal precedents and held that the petitioner's claim was unsustainable.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for alteration of date of birth in the Service Register, based on the discrepancy between the recorded date of birth and the petitioner's claimed date of birth.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of unimpeachable evidence in seeking correction of date of birth, citing various legal precedents. The court held that the petitioner's claim lacked sufficient evidence to support the alteration of date of birth.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to either party.
1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is to quash the order dated 19.9.2008, passed by the first respondent confirming the order of the second respondent dated 4.7.2006 and direct respondents to alter the date of birth of the petitioner as 2.3.1959, instead of 11.5.1956 in the Service Register.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was born on 2.3.1959; his father was a Teacher and his father had two elder children, first one is a male and the second one is a female. The petitioner claims to be the third child. According to the petitioner, his elder brother was born on 11.10.1950 and his elder sister was born on 22.11.1953. Their dates of birth were also entered in the Birth Registrar maintained by the Erode Municipality. However, the petitioner's date of birth was not registered in that Registrar as he was born in a village. The horoscope was prepared and in the horoscope, the petitioner's date of birth is entered as 2.3.1959, which according to the petitioner is the correct date of birth. The petitioner was admitted in the School in the year 1963 and according to the petitioner, at that time, his elder sister was studying in VI standard. According to the petitioner As the petitioner's father and the Headmaster of the school of the School happened to be the teaching community, the Headmaster entered the petitioner's date of birth as he liked and the petitioner's father also did not verify the entry School Register about the petitioner's date of birth. On completion of 5th standard, when the petitioner's Transfer Certificate was given, petitioner's father noted that the date of birth was entered as 11.5.1956 and immediately he made a representation to the District Educational Officer, Gobichettipalayam, for correction. However, the said representation was not considered. The petitioner's father again submitted a representation to consider the representation to the District Educational Officer, Gobichettipalayam, and prayed for correction of the date of birth of the petitioner. The District Educational Officer has rejected the said request on 24.7.1969 and again on 19.8.1969. The petitioner joined in the Government Higher Secondary School, Gobichetiyapalayam in August, 1969 and according to the petitioner his father was advised to submit an Application for alteration of date of birth through the Headmaster of the said School. Accordingly, the petitioner's father submitted a representation to the District Educational Officer, which was also rejected on 1.11.1973. The petitioner's father thereafter applied to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gobichettipalayam on 19.3.1974. According to the petitioner, the Revenue Divisional Officer forwarded the papers to the Tahsildar, Tahsildar in turn called for a report from the Revenue Inspector and based on the order passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner's date of birth was entered in the Birth Register as 2.3.1959.
3. Accoring to the petitioner he was not given with any birth extract. He approached the Director of School Education on 12.7.1976 to correct the entry made in S.S.L.C.Book regarding the date of birth, which was returned on 27.7.1976. After leaving the School, the petitioner joined in the college and attended regular B.A.degree course. After passing B.A., M.A. and M.Ed. Degrees, the petitioner registered his name in the Employment Exchange mentioning the petitioner's date of birth as 11.5.1956. While awaiting for employment opportunity, the Teachers Recruitment Board called for Applications from the 'open market' for the post of B.T.Assistant, selection was made, pursuant to which the petitioner was selected and appointed as Block Resources Teacher on 19.7.2002 and thereafter the post was converted as B.T.Assisant in the year 2006.
4. According to the petitioner he applied within five years of entry into Government service, i.e. on 19.4.2004, for alteration of his date of birth. However, the same was returned with a remark to re-submit the same with original of the bir
